Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Allegro de Concert, which is one of Chopin's hardest works hasn't been mentioned. It's definitely a major work. Also, there's the E flat major rondo, op. 18 if I remember right. Andante spianato e Grande polonaise brillante is almost a solo piano work, methinks.

I honestly don't think you're ready for any of these pieces. As usual, if you have to ask which piece is harder than you probably aren't ready to play any of them. IMO the easiest out of the pieces you listed would be the 3rd ballade or op. 48 no. 1, but even these works are very technically challenging (I'm thinking of the ending section of the 3rd ballade and the octaves + coda of 48/1 for example). Quite frankly I think you are underestimating the difficulty of these pieces and vastly overestimating your own technique. You are not "quite an advanced player" just because you can play the Pathetique and a few easy Chopin pieces. I have played pieces like Beethoven op. 53, op. 57, op.81a and Chopin op. 25 no. 11 etc and I would not even consider myself an advanced player.

As usual the final decision is up to you and you seem set on tackling one of these major works. I can understand as they are great works of music and are very close to my heart. However I think if you do give it a try, you will find the quality of your playing to be ultimately less than satisfying. These pieces demand a great technical and musical maturity. You won't be doing the piece justice, technically or musically. This is why I stopped playing the B-flat minor sonata because it was clear after 20 minutes that I was neither technically nor musically ready for this colossal work. If you wanted suggestions of where to go next, I would personally suggest some more Beethoven sonatas like op.31/3 or some Chopin etudes like 10/5, 10/12, 25/1, 25/2 etc. Whether or not you can play these pieces well should be an good indicator if you're ready for one of Chopin's major works.

pianoloverus
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 05/29/01
Posts: 21717
Loc: New York City

I think whether the original poster is still here is usually of minor importance. If a topic is interesting, important, etc. than the answers are almost always interesting and important to many people.

I spent the last few months learning 25/11 and I can give a relatively acceptable private rendition, i.e. the speed is pretty proper, accuracy is decent and there is sufficient musicality. I still wouldn't perform it live, but I also spent a lot of hours of effort on it and I wouldn't say it's completely trash.

Anyway my point was that in the classical music world, there is always space to improve. Unless I was at the very top, I wouldn't waste time considering how good I was. I don't have any illusions about my skill level. Amongst amateurs and regular people I am obviously very good. But compared with professionals and conservatory students I am definitely nothing special, which is fine for me since piano playing is just a hobby (although a dedicated one).

Another reason why I don't consider myself advanced is because there are still many pieces that I want to play but can't. Chopin's 2nd and 3rd piano sonatas, for instance, as well as his 1st and 4th Ballade, 3rd scherzo, the late Beethoven sonatas, the Liszt sonata, Bach's Goldbergs etc. Keep setting goals for yourself and you will always find space to improve. When I was in 4th grade I wanted to play Mozart's rondo alla turca and Beethoven's appassionata sonata. Today these goals have become reality but I have new goals to replace them

Originally Posted By: Mark_C

Good observation, and I think we should presume that we shouldn't presume what you presumed!

Okay, what is your definition of playing 25/11 well? My idea of playing well would be on the level of Sokolov or Richter or Lhevinne or Orozco. In that case, I don't play 25/11 well at all. But again if your definition of playing well would be simply to give a pretty good rendition for an amateur pianist that still does the piece justice, then I suppose I can agree with -Frycek's presumption.

Mark_C
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 21044
Loc: New York

Here's the thing: If you can play that piece fairly well, you are an advanced player. Since you said you don't consider yourself one, there seems to be a contradiction. In fact, IMO there is a contradiction.

So, the only thing I would presume is that one thing or the other isn't so. Which, I don't know.

P.S. I can't get much from what you say "playing well" means, including because (pardon my saying so) the pianists you mentioned as examples of "playing well" are ridiculous. That's not playing 'well,' that's playing at an all-time-great Hall of Fame level. All I can say is, we all have our ideas of what it means to play a piece "well," and while all our ideas might be somewhat different, I'm comfortable talking about it without defining it, and feeling that it's pretty similar to what most people think -- and that saying the standard for playing "well" is Lhevinne, Sokolov etc. has no resemblance to what most people think. I'm not putting down your playing at all; in fact I'd guess you're better than how you made yourself sound with the modest statement.